just finished Rob House's book.

[Pontius2000]

and it is fantastic. the best of the dozen or so suspect books I've read (of course that's not hurt by the fact that I've long believed JTR was either Kosminski or someone with very similar circumstances to Kosminski).

what is so good about this book is that you don't have to suspend disbelief in order to see that Kosminski is the best known suspect. he's not a serial killer who changed his MO (Klosowski), a drug addict who wrote a 'diary', a prince, an artist, a guy who got committed under an assumed name, or any one of the other suspects that are mostly nonsense. He's just unfortunately not sexy enough for most people to believe. people would rather believe that JTR wore the black cape and tophat than believe he was a schizophrenic who ate bread from the gutter.

I've also always believed, like Rob, that Kosminski was put into a private asylum by his family sometime around February or March 1889 and the records are lost.

But even if you think you know all about a subject, you always learn more. Like Kosminski's possible connection to "The Lodger" story. I also liked Rob's explanation of the possible meaning of the Ghoulston Graffiti, which I had never thought of.

It's just a great book. read it.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Pilate. Yes, Rob's book exceeded my expectations and is one of the best suspect books ever put out. That's not to say I agree with all his arguments and conclusions, but then I don't often agree with all of my own. The book is necessary for anyone who wants to understand the pro-Kozminski argument, and since Koz is an important suspect that encompasses some of the highest ranking police officials, I would think any serious Ripper student would want to know that argument.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jonathan H]

This is not, I do not think, being nitpicky when I write that Rob House has not written a 'suspect' book.

If you are writing a book in which you argue that the authorities pretty much solved it at the time, then this is cannot be a 'suspect' book, somehow detached from a 'Ripper' book?!

Rob House has written a book on 'Jack the Ripper', plain and simple, in which he is arguing that certain primary sources, and early secondary sources, trump certain modern secondary sources which argue -- as if it is a fact -- that the case was not solved by the contemporaneous police; that 'Jack' remained unidentified.

Oh ... except for some desperate, unlikely, too-late claims by ageing, addled policemen, pathetically trying to hustle their memoirs to a credulous mob (Anderson began droppoing big hints about his caged lunatic fifteen years before his controversial memoirs debuted).

Rob is arguing, as other have before him, that certain policemen are more likely to be accurate than others.

I completely agree with the theme of the argument -- it was practically solved at the time -- just prefer a different policeman and thus a different suspect.

Some will argue: do they not cancel each other out?

The answer is no, they do not automatically cancel each other out, according to historical methodology, which is based on a subjective appreciation of multiple and competing interpretations of the same material -- one argument of which can be the cancel-each-other-out interpretation.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Jonathan. The word 'suspect' is in the title of the book, so yes, he wrote a suspect book.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jonathan H]

Check again, Tom.

It's [allegedly] about Scotland Yar'd 's prime suspect.

That's not a 'suspect' book as that term is bandied about by some here; as something separate from a generic Ripper/Mystery book (eg. 'Uncle Jack', 'Case Closed') solved by a secondary source: eg. by a modern author.

It is rather an argument for the case being solved at the time -- as far as a case can be which results in no arrest, let alone a conviction -- by the relevant law enforcement officials to whom it feel to solve it.

[John Bennett]

Hi Jonathan. The word 'suspect' is in the title of the book, so yes, he wrote a suspect book.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I agree with Tom here. It is a 'suspect' book, though perhaps one with a twist in that Rob doesn't ram Kosminski's potential guilt down our throats. He is pretty circumspect when it comes to that.

[Abby Normal]

and it is fantastic. the best of the dozen or so suspect books I've read (of course that's not hurt by the fact that I've long believed JTR was either Kosminski or someone with very similar circumstances to Kosminski).

what is so good about this book is that you don't have to suspend disbelief in order to see that Kosminski is the best known suspect. he's not a serial killer who changed his MO (Klosowski), a drug addict who wrote a 'diary', a prince, an artist, a guy who got committed under an assumed name, or any one of the other suspects that are mostly nonsense. He's just unfortunately not sexy enough for most people to believe. people would rather believe that JTR wore the black cape and tophat than believe he was a schizophrenic who ate bread from the gutter.

I've also always believed, like Rob, that Kosminski was put into a private asylum by his family sometime around February or March 1889 and the records are lost.

But even if you think you know all about a subject, you always learn more. Like Kosminski's possible connection to "The Lodger" story. I also liked Rob's explanation of the possible meaning of the Ghoulston Graffiti, which I had never thought of.

It's just a great book. read it.

Hi Pontius
yes-its a great book-and this is coming from someone who does not think that AK was JtR.

However, Rob Houses book has convinced me that whatever one thinks of Anderson's "definitely ascertained fact" (IMHO-not much) Kosminski MUST be considered a possible suspect. As much as I hate to admit it the fact that he was mentioned by 3 senior police officials and also is the only suspect that any possible evidence is attached to (a possible ID by witness) he has to be in the mix.

[Tom_Wescott]

Just for the record, I don't think 'suspect book' is a dirty word, and apparently neither does House. It's a shame that when we think 'suspect book' the worst come first to mind and not the best.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Pontius2000]

well, it most definitely IS a "suspect book". but it mostly sticks tight to the known facts and statements of the police, so it does not go far out on a limb the way most suspect books do. really, the only part of the book that is much of a theory is the part about "the Lodger" (rather, a shirt that was dropped off to be laundered). and even that is not much of a stretch considering the laundress lived 2 streets over from where Kosminski was most likely living. saying that Maybrick, Sickert, or Druitt came into the area and lodged with this women (when House points out that "the Lodger" was NOT actually a lodger)...THAT would be a stretch of the imagination.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Pilate. The owner of the shirt that became blooded was a West End tailor. And I'd say there was quit a bit of theorizing in the book, such as the discussion, however interesting, of Koz's mental state, not to mention profiling and such.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stewart P Evans]

But...

...
However, Rob Houses book has convinced me that whatever one thinks of Anderson's "definitely ascertained fact" (IMHO-not much) Kosminski MUST be considered a possible suspect. As much as I hate to admit it the fact that he was mentioned by 3 senior police officials and also is the only suspect that any possible evidence is attached to (a possible ID by witness) he has to be in the mix.

But we've always known that and I don't think that anyone has ever seriously disputed it.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I think Swanson's notes is the document that lends most weight.

The problem is that he erred when suggesting Kosminski had died.

So, you're left with two choices:

1) Do you discount the whole thing based on that error?
2) Do you attempt to seperate what what is correct from the error?

I personally would go with 2, and would seperate the meat of the notes (very unlikely to be incorrect) from what is peripheral (more likely to be incorrect).

To me, the meat is that someone was identified was Jack. That is the point of the notes.

Then you're left with what is peripheral and therefore more open to error, and you're left with an interesting question:

1) Was Swanson in error when he said the man was dead? or
2) Was the man dead and he was in error when he said it was Kosminski?

Really, both are equally likely.

Except McN provides some support. He names three more likely suspects. It is true that he said more likely as opposed to the best, but the two are the same thing anyway. McN's objective was to cast doubt on Cutbush; of course to meet this objective you need the best suspects you can think of. The only other possibility is that one man was left out who was the overwhelming favourite, but for whatever reason they did not want it made public.

So, I'd say McN believes Kosminski was a decent suspect and this lends weight to Swanson having the man right. I think this alone makes Kosminski the best suspect out there, although the competition isn't particularly strong.

[lynn cates]

Campbell

Hello Abby. Anderson's definitely ascertained fact? Well, my favourite line on Anderson comes from Christy Campbell. He notes that, regarding the dynamite plot of 1887, SRA's story was disbelieved. But then he adds concerning SRA, "For once he was telling the truth."

So, if SRA could tell the truth once, why not twice?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

circs

Hello Mac.

"So, I'd say McN believes Kosminski was a decent suspect"

Yes, he mentioned "many circs" but did not list them.

Of course, he also exonerated him--in his opinion--letting MJD come to the fore.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Of course, he also exonerated him--in his opinion--letting MJD come to the fore.

Lynn, by MJD you mean Druitt, of course?
Rob House's book is on my reading list, hopefully I'll manage getting to it before the end of the month.
Not convinced by his use of “the Lodger“, but very interested to see what he's researched about asylums.